Villupuram
Atrocity: Physical and Symbolic Violence against Dalits[*]
J.
Balasubramaniam[†]
Abstract:
This paper describes the violence against Dalits in Villupuram in 1978, by the
caste Hindus. By using the concept of symbolic violence it critically analyses
the content of the Report of R. Sadasivam Commission, which was constituted by
the Tamilnadu Government to enquire the violence. It also explains how the Dalits
counter the symbolic violence by preparing and publishing their own report. From
the comparison of these two reports the study demonstrates how the state
upholds the system of caste by supporting the views of dominant castes.
Looking back the
Violence
Periyaparaichery
(Big Paraiyar Colony) is situated near the vegetable market and bus station, considered
as the center place of Villupuram city. This settlement has dalits mostly engaged
as load men and coolie labourers
in the vegetable market. The shops in the market are owned by dominant caste Hindus
of Mudaliyar, Vanniyar, Nadar and also Muslims (In violence Muslims took active
part). Though the Vanniyars were the ground level executors of the violence, other
caste Hindus played a vital role by providing economic and moral support to the
violators. As Dalits are numerically in majority (in 1978 around 5000 in 2011
around 8000) they never faced any
physical atrocity from other dominant castes. This numerical strength gave the
Dalits a moral strength to counter any physical violence. M. Jothilingam and T.
Loganathan were the respectable people among the Dalits. The former was a
business man and latter was the Congress party man. Both of them enjoyed
respect from the Dalits of Priyaparaichery. Loganathan was a strict Gandhian follower;
he never allowed liquor shops to be opened in the Periyaparaichery. Jothilingam
owned a truck and also ran a cooperative store, in which around 300 Dalits
worked. This position gave them the power to mediate the petty issues that arose
not only among the Dalits but also among the caste Hindus. This respectable
position of Dalits and their presence in the center place of the city always irked
the caste Hindus.
Salammal,
a Dalit woman was molested by a Vanniyar caste man Kaliyamoorthy alias Kaliyan,who
was a vegetable vendor in the market. Salammal’s
husband Shanmugam – worked as a truck driver with Jothilingam – went to
Kaliyan’s place with other seven Dalits to enquire about the molestation which ended in the attack of Kaliyan by
Shanmugam and other Dalits. Based on the advice of Kamaraj Vegetable Market Vendors
Association's President Annamalai, Kaliyan lodged acomplaint against Shanmugam
and others. But the caste Hindus assumed that the police will not take any action
against the Dalits, so they called for the closure of shops and a procession
demanding to take police action against the Dalits who attacked the Vegetable
vendor. In that procession anti Dalit slogans were raised like ‘Displace Dalits
from the center part of the city’, ‘Paraiyans wives our concubines’. The accused Dalits later surrendered in the
police station. After this the police convened for a peace meeting between the two
parties. But the caste Hindus boycotted the meeting and they called for a
secret meeting in a place called Muthuthoppu. They collectively decided to
attack the Periyaparaichery. In the same night a few cycle rickshaws of the Dalits
were torched and the rickshaw men were attacked by the caste Hindus and also torched
nearly eight huts of the Dalits. The next morning (25th July) Dalits
in order to retaliate, attacked the caste Hindus and also torched their houses.
In the end of the violence, twelve Dalits were brutally murdered and many huts
were burned down. After the two days of violence twenty two more huts of the Dalits
were torched and also many were damaged.
After
the violence, the Congress leader Jegajeevanram, Janata party leader
Chandrasekar, Tamilnadu assembly opponent party leader Karunanithi and Chief
Minister M.G.R. visited the affected areas. This external pressure necessitated
the Tamilnadu Government to form an Enquiry Commission. The Commission was
formed on 29.07.1978. Regarding this violence 41 caste Hindus were accused and among
them 34 were arrested. In the court judgment three accused were sentenced to
death (later it was reduced as life conviction) and life sentence were given to
27 people. Later many of the life convicted were released as their convictions
were reduced.
Sadasivam
Commission Report and Symbolic Violence
Pierre
Bourdieu, who coined the term, symbolic violence, is the gentle, hidden form of violence takes when overt violence is
impossible.[1]
When we critically analyse
the report we understand that the Commission Report is a deliberate symbolic
violence against Dalits. On 31.07.1978 Justice Sadasivam took charge as the Chairman
of the Commission. From 10.08.1978 onwards, the Commission started its enquiry
and submitted its report after six months. The Commission Report (150 Pages) was
prepared with the support of 211 witnesses and 310 material evidences. The
Dalits questioned the objectivity of the chairman of the Commission Justice
Sadasivam since he belonged to the Mudaliyar caste. In the violence the Mudaliyars
played a vital role, so the dalits believed that the enquiry will be a biased
one. At that time the Tamilnadu Law minister was K. Narayanasamy Mudaliyar. The
Chief Minister nominated Sadasivam as the chairman of the Commission, only by
the recommendation of the Law minister. When the Commission started its enquiry,
the Dalit leaders decided not to cooperate with the Commission, but after the
intervention of the Dalit Leader L. Ilayaperumal and Dalit Congress Member of
Parliament Maragatham Chandrasekar, Dalit activists and leaders changed their
decision. They believed that with the evidences available they could get justice.
The
Report says that this violence is the reaction of the non-Dalits against the
anti social elements among Dalits, so there is no caste discrimination behind
the violence. But the Report agrees that the violence took place only after
Dalits’ huts were set on fire and 12 victims were Dalits. This statement is the
only truth of the report. But it never raised the doubt whether the violence
took place because of caste hatred or discrimination. When it narrates the
sequence of the violence it states that “it appears that the Nandanar Street
was first set on fire on 24.07.1978” and in another statement it states that
“it seems the violence took place after attacking the rickshaw pullers and
their rickshaws”. Here we must note that whenever the Report explains the
damage of Dalits it used the words of ‘appears’ and ‘seems’. But while
narrating the version of caste Hindus it strongly holds its tone that “the
vegetable vendors could not tolerate the rowdyism of Periyaparachery” and “I
came to know that the Periyaparachery is the asylum for hooligans”. The report strongly says that “There are many
evidences to prove that this violence was against the anti social elements of
Periyaparachery”. The Report tries to construct an image that there was a valid
reason behind the violence, so it is nothing wrong in the killing of Daits. The
Dalits were leading a worst life and the Periyaparacheri was the asylum for
Prostitutes, thieves, rowdies etc. So the violence was essential to keep the
‘order’. The Report accepts all accounts which claims Dalits’ wrong doings led
to the violence. At the same time it raises its doubts while narrating the
damage of the Dalits. If one person tries to understand the violence through
this Report, it is sure that definitely he/she will come to a conclusion that
the violence was unavoidable one.
The
main demand of the procession of caste Hindus was to change the place of the
vegetable market and the Bus Station. However the Report says that the
requisition for the change of market and Bus Stand was only because of safety reasons
and not because of untouchability or caste bias. It also upheld the statement
of the Chief Minister that it was not a caste violence. It also refutes that there were no slogans
raised against the Harijans. The Report accepts all the witnesses of the caste
Hindus without any doubt, but the Justice questioned all the victim side witnesses.
For instance the report dismisses the witness of a Dalit woman Kalyani (Her
house was first set on fire) by saying that “if Mrs. Kalyani’s witness appears
as truth it was mixture of imagination”.
Another witness was Mahendran who was a non-Dalit who married a Dalit woman and
settled in Periyaparachery. He was an eyewitness of the brutality of caste
Hindus, he narrated all the brutalities before the commission, but his account
was rejected, the Commissioner’s reason was “I do not believe the witness is a genuine
one”. Moreover the Report questions the marital legality of Mahendran and his
wife, because they lived together. It also tries to establish that Salammal was
not a legal wife of Shanmugam. It is understandable that what kind of image the
Report trying to build upon Dalits by establishing these kinds of ‘illegalness’
attached to the Dalits life. Sellaram (witness 19) admitted that the caste
Hindus were jealous about the decent living of the Dalits, this was the main
reason behind the violence. But the Justice rejects the witness and accused the
Dalits there by stating that “the educated and employed Harijans forget their
relatives after settling in the city and they never come back to Periyaparachery.”
Report
of David
A
Government Commission’s Report is not just a report, it is an authentic legal documentation
and in a way it will act as valid source for any future reference. In this situation
a Report on Villupuram Violence was an important intervention from the side of the
Dalits. The Report was also published as a book by D. David. The intervention
of the activists and academicians like David, Bharathan (Professor in MIDS),
Brindavan Moses acted as a pressure group when the enquiry was in process. The
Sadasivam Report agrees that “on demand of David I requested the police to send
the criminal history and list of rowdies of non-Harijans”, from this statement
we could understand that David’s intervention was an obvious one. David is a
Dalit Christian born in 1932 in Vellore. He actively involved in the caste issues
in the diocese. In 1971 after the demise of the Vellore Bishop David
Mariyanayagam, David demanded for a Dalit Bishop, but did not happen so. He formed
an organisation called Purapaduththapattor
Manitha Urimaigal Sangam (Human Rights Association for Excluded Citizens) with
the support of other activists like Aruldoss, Sadhananthan and Joseph, in order
to provide legal assistance to the affected Dalits. From this association they
organised many conferences, for instance in Madurai a seminar was held titled
'The Caste will exist until reservation exists, right or wrong.’ With this
political involvement and understanding he voluntarily took the Villupuram
issue in his hand, when he came to know the incident through newspaper. He prepared
the Report with the help of Athony raj the then AICUF (All India Catholic University Federation) Secretary, and
L. Ilayaperumal, Bharathan, and Arasappan.
As
a Lawyer he meticulously prepared the report with the help of witnesses,
material evidences and data. Throughout the Report he used the term Harijan, to denote the Dalits. Though he
used the Gandhian term Harijan, it is
clearly visible that he understood caste in Ambedkar's perspective. In the
report he explained how the caste functions in the society directly and
indirectly. The report contains ten chapters excluding introduction. The fifth
chapter titled 'Whether the Villupuram violence is a clash between anti social
elements or caste violence'. The report explains what is group clash? And what
is caste violence? it clearly says that group violence or clash of anti social
elements is that the law breakers unite together without any caste, race,
language and religion differences and involve in clashes for their self
development or take revenge against rival group. But the caste violence is the
conflict between two castes, in this conflict the anti social elements of a particular
caste will attack the people of another caste. So when the dominant caste
people attack the oppressed people we call it as caste violence. A particular
caste must well plan to attack another caste and it takes place systematically
when the opportunity arises. In the caste violence people of single caste or
different castes but having the same goal may unite together and attack another
single caste. In this attack some people involve actively in the violence but some
people participate passively. But the passive people never try to stop the violators
of their caste and cannot cooperate with the police and reveal the truth at the
time of enquiry. But in the Villupuaram violence all the caste Hindus and
Muslims united together against the Dalits. The violence extended for six days.
Dalits started to protect themselves when they felt that the police and the government
will not give enough protection. In the way David argues that these incidents
clearly prove that it was systematic caste violence against Dalits, not a clash
between anti social elements. In this violence people across the political
party, poor, rich good people and bad people all took position against the
Dalits. So if we see the educational and economic background of the violators
we cannot say it as a clash between the goons. In the conclusion, the report
stated that: 1. it was apparent caste violence executed by the non-Harijans and
Muslims who had vengeance on Harijans. 2. The Government officials like revenue
and police failed to stop the violence. 3. The District Collector P.S. Pandian
failed to visit the spot immediately and also submitted the report to the Government
by gathering the information through the revenue officials who did not even visit
the spot. 4. It also recommends legal action against the Vilupuram M.L.A.
Krishnan, who involved in the violence.5. Tamilnadu Chief Minister M.G.Ramachandran
failed to produce the petition submitted by Chinnaraj before the Enquiry
Commission. The C.M. also failed to get down at the spot when he crossed
Villupuram on his way back from Madurai on 25.07.1978 and ordered the
subordinate officials to take action.
Conclusion
In
the numerical majoritarian democratic political condition the state and major
political parties support the opinion of numerical majority even if it is an anti
constitution. In the Indian society the dominant castes want to preserve the system
of caste since it gives ruling power, preserving and exercising caste hierarchy is not possible without
oppressing the lower castes. But the oppressed sections of the society especially
the Dalits want to liberate themselves from the clutches of caste. So the
Dalits assert themselves but the dominant castes try to subjugate assertion by
using violence. Since dominant castes enjoy the hegemonic position in the
political power they use the state machinery against the Dalits. It could be
understood by much recent violence like Kodiyankulam, Thamirabarani, Paramakudi
and Dharmapuri. So far we understand that the idea of Enquiry Commissions is
the strategy of the Government to reduce the anger of victims. But the review of the two reports on
Villupuram (Sadasivam Report and David Report) violence clearly shows that the state
not only oppresses the Dalits physically, but impose symbolic violence against the
Dalits by setting up Enquiry Commissions.
Notes and References
[*] This paper’s first
draft was presented in a Three Day National Seminar on “Interrogating the Reports of ‘Judicial’
Enquiry Commissions on Caste Violence in Tamil Nadu”, held at MIDS, Chennai, from 28 March to 30 March 2013. Published in the Voice of Dalit, Vol. 6, No. 2, (July-December) 2013.
[†]
J. Balasubramaniam
(balumids@gmail.com) is with the Department of Journalism in Madurai Kamaraj
University,Tamilnadu.
[1] Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
2.
Stalin Rajangam, ed., Villupuram
Padukolai: Dalit Arikkai [Villpuram Atrocity: a Dalit Report], Kalachuvadu
Publishers, Nagerkoil, 2012.
3.
Justice R. Sadasivam, (1979) Enquiry
Commission Report on Villupuram Clashes, Tamilnadu Government.
4.
“Villupuram Atrocity”, EPW, Vol - XIII No. 41, October 14, 1978.
5. David, D. (1979) Vilupurathil
(26, July 1978) Pannirendu Thalthapatta Makkal Payankara Padukolai [A
Gruesome Murder of Twelve Oppressed People in Villupuram] (Vellor: David
Publication).
No comments:
Post a Comment